Welcome, my friends, to the first Man Boobz Pledge Drive!
I would like to take a moment from the usual goings on here at the Man Boobz blog to humbly ask any and all of you who enjoy this blog, and who can afford it, to consider clicking on the “donation” button below and sending a small (or a large) amount of money to help support this blog’s continued existence.
As most of you know, I support myself as a freelance writer. But at the moment I am working on a project that will not be paying off for a long time. As a result, things are a little lean here at Man Boobz manor, and I’ve been dealing with a number of unexpected expenses. So anything you can throw my way, from $5 to $500,000, would be enormously appreciated.
Click below to donate through PayPal, using any major credit card. (And I am adding a permanent Donate button to the sidebar.)
If you cannot afford to donate, and I know some of you can’t, that’s fine too. Seriously. The fact is that many of you already contribute immeasurably to this blog with your (hilarious, insightful, biting) comments, here and on the forum. In case anyone is wondering, the comment count on this blog recently passed 125,000. One hundred and twenty-five fucking thousand! And most of them (trolls excluded) are pretty fucking awesome comments, as well. I know, because I read them all.
When I started this blog I had no idea that it would turn into a community, but now that it has it’s the community here that keeps me going, even when I get utterly sick of the awful, awful people I write about regularly. I appreciate you all — you of the Man Boobz community, that is, not the awful misogynists — more than you realize.
Aww, I’m getting all sentimental.
In keeping with the Pledge Drive theme, I would like to present you with the trailer to a TV special I happened to run across (for reals) during a recent Pledge Drive on a local PBS station. It was so awesomely entertaining, I rented the DVD from Netflix shortly afterwards. Without further ado, here’s Mitzi Gaynor, in all her kitschy 70s glory:
I am devoid of wit today, so here without comment is a heaping slab of “women are whores” courtesy of the Men’s Rights subreddit. The whole thread is full of poop; check it out.
Let me explain once more why your vagina is like my money.
The A(n)nals of Online Dating blog manages to unearth some astoundingly awful and creepy online dating profiles. Looking around on the site’s archives the other day, I came across one profile that reminded me of so many discussions here I felt I needed to share it with you. Here’s some unnamed OKCupid dude explaining just what he looks for in a woman.
He starts off almost reasonably:
Message me if you are intelligent and can hold chopsticks and are not racist.
Ok, that’s a little confrontational, and the bit about chopsticks is odd, but there’s nothing wrong with wanting your date to be smart and not a bigot.
It’s at this point he careens off the road:
Also message me if you can understand that a WOMAN’S vagina is like a MAN’S money.
Go on.
Meaning if we are NOT dating and if I do not KNOW who you are, you will have to be able to provide for yourself.
Are there really a lot of women on dating sites that expect men they don’t know to pay their rent or electric bills?
I am not going to give a little unless you can give a little.
Ah, the transactional model of dating. What’s the over/under on this guy also being a raving Ron Paul fan?
Most women dont want to feel like a whore by giving it up on the first night and dont want to be used just for sex. They also dont want to give it up and then be afraid the man will leave. Thats the SAME way I FEEL about spending my hard earned money on you.
Because women don’t want to feel like whores, you’re going to treat them exactly like whores, by equating vaginas and money?
A lot of women in this town dont follow through with anything they say and a lot of them have A LOT of insecurities along with expecting a guy to buy them food and drinks and then completely walk over them.
By “walk[ing] over them” I presume he means that the women are not having sex with every guy who buys them a dinner while explaining at length about how vaginas and money are the same thing and why Ron Paul is the only hope for our nation.
I dont play that and I’ve dated a few women who are gorgeous who happen to understand what I am talking about.
So why the OkCupid profile? I guess these gorgeous women must not be returning his calls any more.
So if you u understand that my money and time is just as valuable as your body, then we’ll be in agreement to not share anything until there is an understanding.
You’ll need to sign the “sex for dinner” contract here and here, and initial here. And you’re ready to go!
Oh, and if you fellas here (of the heterosexual persuasion) are feeling a little left out, remember, there are some terrible, terrible women out there in online dating land for you as well.
If you like prescription drugs, weird bird feet, and fistfights with jealous Juggalo ex-boyfriends, send this little lady a note.
EDITED TO ADD: Holly Pervocracy has a great post on the wrongness of the vaginas = money equation here.
Apparently a lot of ladies have these things living in their lady regions.
Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.
Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.
Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.
Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:
[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.
GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.
Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.
Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.
The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.
The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).
Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.
Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).
Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.
The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …
This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.
And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?
The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.
It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.
Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.
Stirring words indeed.
Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.
The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.
And it’s always to be remembered that this type of woman, being a natural mercenary and hostage maker, has the legal violence of the law to back up her nastiness.
Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.
Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.
When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.
Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.
A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.
Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.
As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.
The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.
The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.
It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.
It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.
Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!
Turns out the boys at The Spearhead are celebrating V-Day in their own special way. I thought I’d share this lovely e-card I found there. And a couple of little rants from the comments. First, here’s Eric, with this sweet little tale:
Earlier, I was waiting at a bus stop near some restaurants and saw, in 20 minutes’ time, 9 couples going out to ‘V-Day’ dinner. The women were dressed up, hair done, &c.—and in 8 of those cases were dragging along some piece of human waste who looked like he hadn’t been near either a bathtub or a jobsite in months!
It’s amazing how little sense of shame these bitches have to be seen with these louts and thugs. Of course, none of them would ever dream of being seen in public with some respectable-looking guy.
Just as an aside, the 9th couple I saw was a tall, handsome, clean-cut, well-dressed looking guy who had an aura of confidence and intelligence about him. And the woman with him was Asian! LOL
LOL indeed, Eric. LOL indeed.
(NOTE TO SELF: Find out why what he said is supposed to be funny.)
On behalf of women, owed and entitled to valentines, the sexist-police-state sanctions plunder, rapine and murder of men and of children pursuant to its repugnant social policies. How can mutual appreciation exist in such environments of one sided self love of all things female ?
In such a state of extracted obligation and responsibility by one side of partnerships for the undue benefit of the other side, there can only be hatred, contempt, jealousy, indifference, cruelty, maliciousness and spite.
Relationships are no longer mutual, voluntary nor free in gendertopia. They come with such attatchments and baggage by outsiders to it, as to effectively be man-traps. Why would any man willingly expose himself or even his kids to expropriation, torture or even death ?
Gendertopias caste of sexual aggrieviance hacks lack the natural human feelings of kinship or sincerity. And their poison has spread because of this, meaning everything moral and material is to be appropriated for the woman, only for the woman and no one else but the woman. There now isn’t anyone left amongst men, women or the pawned, bartered and pledged children cappable of knowing genuine love.
And a happy Valentine’s Day to you too, Poiuyt!
I can’t wait to see what you have to say about Arbor Day.
Also, “cappable?” Did you take spelling lessons from this guy?
Even cats are discombobulated by the evil that is Valentine's Day
Today, on this terrible so-called holiday, devoted to hearts and flowers and men giving things to ladies that are on average more expensive than the things ladies give to men, statistically speaking, I would like to relay a few words of hope to all the brave and noble Men Going Their Own Way, from our friend Spidey on MGTOWforums.com. Yes, it is true that “Valentines day is nothing more then another day where women have their egos inflated.” But remember this:
For every one of you that stays single, there is some b**** out there spending valentines day alone unable to force you to waste time and money on her
Stay strong, fellas. Resist the lure of the evil ladies and their never ending hunger for diamonds and chocolate and your precious seed.
Today, fellas, take a few moments to silently relaxate. Here, author Ronald Chevalier (who couldn’t possibly be Jemaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords) illustrates how, without threatening your seed.
At some point, you’ve probably all heard some douchebag offer some version of the following bit of misogynist humor: You shouldn’t call a woman a bitch because that’s an insult … to female dogs!
A traditionalist Christian named Walter Allen Thompson has expanded this dumb joke into an even dumber essay. And he seems to literally believe it. As he explains in the essay, which has been posted on the Very Dumb Government blog (and which I ran across thanks to a link from our pal MarkyMark):
[W]hen some of you call a woman a “bitch” think about what you are saying. The word “bitch” means a female dog. So if you are going to use the word with its true meaning, you would actually be insulting female dogs, because the dogs have better behavior than many women. … I would never insult my dog by calling Gloria Allred a “bitch”. … I would call her a feminist but not a bitch. The feminist movement has made many of our women unseemly wenches.
Walter clearly holds a much higher opinion of his dog:
I love my bitch and I don’t want to say anything to offend her. My bitch is sweet, my bitch is lovable, my bitch is kind, my bitch is considerate, and she hardly causes me any trouble.
And, and as we all know, ladies is trouble:
A dog will give a man unconditional love; whereas, a woman may or may not keep you around depending upon the prevailing winds. I don’t have to buy my dog a food dish lined with jewels…. My dog doesn’t run up a charge account at Macy’s, and she doesn’t spend $50.00 to do her nails. My dog doesn’t take drugs, drink alcohol, or crash my brand new car.
I don’t know from dogs, but if my cat were actually capable of any of these things, she would do them. That’s part of the charm of cats. They’re tiny little monsters – selfish, self-absorbed, amoral creatures we let into our homes because they’re cute, they’re fascinating, and they’re too small to kill us. Not that mine doesn’t try.
I wouldn’t put up with that from a human being, but I put up with it from my cat because she’s a cat, and had a rough childhood (she was abandoned) and doesn’t know any better. Generally speaking, people expect different things from their pets than from their romantic partners.
Well, not this guy:
All my dog needs is a little love, attention, and her food. Overall, the quality of life with my dog has far exceeded any relationship I have had with any woman. The value of any relationship depends upon unconditional love, and that’s more evident with my dog.
“Unconditional love” sounds nice in theory, but in practice as most of us know it’s really a pretty shitty idea. If someone behaves in a way that is unlovable – attacks you, deliberately poops on the couch, starts reading A Voice for Men — you’re not obligated to keep loving them. Loyalty is, by and large, a good thing, and most of us are willing to cut those we love a lot of slack, but no one should be expected to put up with intolerable behavior in the name of unconditional love. (Also, people sometimes fall out of love. I know, shocking.)
People demand a bit more from their loved ones than dogs do, and that’s a good thing. Also, people know things that dogs don’t, and that’s also good. Hitler’s dog loved him. But then again Hitler’s dog didn’t know he was Hitler. (Hitler returned this unconditional love by having poor Blondi killed just before he killed himself.)
Of course, our boy Walter knows that most love is not unconditional. Indeed, as we saw above, he’s got a long list of conditions — some reasonable, some not — that women will have to meet before he’ll be willing to even consider them over his dog. Here are some more of his conditions, which his dog fulfills but most women (in his mind) won’t:
She doesn’t mess with my mind; doesn’t say. She doesn’t tell me she loves me today, but tomorrow she wants a divorce. My dog doesn’t pole dance at drunken parties. My dog doesn’t pick up “stud muffins” at bars. My dog doesn’t make porno films. My dog doesn’t take me to court (you lawyers..don’t get any ideas) and she doesn’t make any unreasonable demands. It is a perfect relationship as I don’t have to entertain any of her relatives. My dog is my friend and not my adversary.
It’s a pretty revealing list. He’s upset not only by infidelity, but also by women changing their mind about things – “say[ing] yes today and no tomorrow.” (Saying “no” to what? Sex? Does he think he deserves the right to rape his wife?) His idea of a “perfect relationship” seems to be one in which he doesn’t have to deal with a woman’s wants, or desires, or even her relatives.
Walter rails against feminists and feminism, but it’s clear that he also has issues with traditional women actually expecting him to fulfill his role in a traditional male-breadwinner marriage.
If you want to know where you stand with a woman, just run out of money. If you have a woman that stays with you when you’re broke or in a setback, then you have a good one.
Here’s a hint: if you don’t want a woman to expect you to provide for her, don’t marry a woman who expects you to provide for her.
Also: try not feeding your dog for several days, and see how lovable she is after that. (Given the strange literal mindedness of so many misogynists, I should add: don’t literally do that. Just imagine doing it, in your head.)
If I was ever to consider getting married again, the woman would have to (at the very least) rise to the level of the behavior of my beautiful little dog. Dogs and animals stay within the natural order in which God created; many people do not.
No, that’s ok. Stick to dogs for now.
EDITED TO ADD: As Molly Ren points out in the comments, it turns out that some dogs do pole dance. Heck, some even lick the stripper pole, like Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. (Well, not exactly like Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls.)
You know those guys over on MGTOWforums.com, who spend so much of their time complaining about women and talking about how glad they are to not have anything to do with icky lady stuff? Well, it turns out they don’t hate women at all! They just think that women are all money-hungry narcissists who deserve to be punished for abusing their “rights.”
That may seem like a rather subtle distinction there, or possibly a giant heaping load of steaming bullshit. So I’ll let the eminently rational Spocksdisciple explain it all to you.
A Misogynist hates women because they’re women…
An MGHOW distrusts women for the powers they abuse…
Go on.
An MGHOW isn’t a misogynist and should never be, he’s a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life and doesn’t care what women think about him.
Evidently he means “a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life except for the hours he spends every day complaining about them online.”
He’s also a person who doesn’t actively hate women, but hate the things women do with their gov’t granted powers. The abuses and legal atrocities women commit is the fault of the gov’t and judicial system allowing these abuses.
Yes, those evil feminazi judges that run the country, headed up by that evil Chief Justice Judy on the Supreme Court.
Women will be women just as men will be men, their ingrained nature is no more different then how other animals behave.
Well, perhaps a bit different than how some animals behave. I mean, flatworms have swordfights with their penises in order to determine who gets to be the dude flatworm when they have sex, and I don’t know many people who do that.
I personally think women are hardwired to be hypergamous and self centered, they have to be in order to survive.
We don’t hate women! It’s just that they’re HARDWIRED to be selfish moneygrubbing bitches. It’s SCIENCE!!!
Just as men are hardwired to be analytical problem solvers as well as highly aggressive creatures when the need arises.
Don’t hate us because we’re so smart, ladies!
The trouble is that society today lets women get away with anything and everything, from getting harassed by random dudes on streetcorners to getting paid less than men for the same work.
Sorry, those were bad examples. Back to Spocksdisciple:
Today’s women may not be worthy of trust as has been proven over and over again in the news but in the past women were granted privileges their predecessors earned for them in blood and pain, privileges which were then turned in “inalienable” rights without the ability to suffer the consequences of abusing these “rights”.
Exactly! Now that women have the right to (for example) own property, they should be roundly punished each and every time they abuse these rights! Like, if they buy too much shit, they should have to pay money to rent storage units to keep it in.
NO MORE FREE STORAGE UNITS FOR LADIES!!! We’re on to you!
I’m not sure Spockdisciple has thought of that example. I’ll have to mention it at the next meeting.
But anyway, even though Spocksdisciple thinks women should suffer some sort of consequences for “abusing” their rights –oddly, he doesn’t actually mention what rights women are abusing or how they should be punished – he wants to make it clear that this doesn’t mean he hates the ladies.
Hating women for their innate nature is like them hating men for ours, nothing will come of it, men and women won’t change their innermost nature so why bother wasting the energy in the first place.
A true MGHOW doesn’t hate women, he hates the system which enables such bad behavior in women without them suffering the consequences of such behavior, if women suffered the consequences of their misbehavior you can bet many of them wouldn’t be so eager to abuse their “rights” with impunity.
So, again, MGTOWers don’t hate women. They just think women are inherently a bunch of greedy hoebags who are completely untrustworthy and deserve to be punished.
What on earth is hateful about that?
Naturally, most of the totally non-woman-hating dudes over on MGTOWforums.com found Spocksdisciple’s argument to be logical as shit. As cdub noted:
I don’t hate women. I hate that they are not held accountable for their actions. There are too many blue pillers out there to ever see thru this shit. I think the only thing that will change any of this is if there is complete collapse of the Western world and all those strong, independent women will have to rely on men just like nature intended.
AussieSteve, though, thought Spocksdisciple was being a bit too lenient on the ladies.
I hate the system and I hate what women are. I can hate both because both have earned my hatred. The system hasn’t made women loathsome it has merely created an environment that has exposed their true natures. If somebody lets a poisonous snake out of its cage am I not allowed to kill that snake because it isn’t its fault that it got out? The person that opened the cage should be held accountable as well, sure – but a snake is still a snake and if I have to kill it to protect myself then that snake is going to die. All the system has done is allow women to do abhorrent things, it hasn’t made them do it. It just removed the restraints that our forefathers, in their wisdom, put in place to keep them under control. Women are poisonous snakes and we have stupidly let them out of their cages.
Huh. Women represented by evil snakes. Haven’t ever heard that one before.
Today in Did That Really Get 196 Upvotes on Reddit: A Redditor claiming to be the owner of a brothel in Thailand explains how what he euphemistically calls the “problems in the sex industry” are mostly the fault of evil, lazy whores. Literally.
A little further on in the discussion he makes this charming claim:
According to him, sex trafficking isn’t really a big issue, but when it does occur it “is more likely to victimize men” than women. (The main victims in his mind being trafficked men (by which I assume he means transwomen) … and male sex tourists.)
Those poor, poor Western sex tourists, suffering so at the hands of women and girls who’ve been kidnapped and sold into sex slavery!
While ChaChaKrahp seems quite sincere in his beliefs, this is the Internet, and so there’s a chance that this “brothel owner” is not actually a brothel owner at all, just some dude making this all up for Reddit karma points and lulz.
Even if that’s the case, we still have all those hundreds of Redditors who read his comments and happily upvoted them, either because they thought what he said was sensible or true, or because the thought of owning a brothel in Thailand gave them boners.
The question remains: does Reddit attract the worst representatives of those in its heavily young, male, geek demographic, or is this how most of these (mostly) guys really think — even if they don’t usually say so out loud?
